People ex rel. Crompton Building Corp. v. Sexton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “to merit protection [under the anti-dilution law], the plaintiff must possess a strong mark”
• observing that New York law protects against the “gradual whittling away of a firm’s distinctive trademark ór name”
• observing that New York law protects against the “gradual whittling away of a firm’s distinctive trade-mark or name”
• defining dilution simply as “the gradual whittling away of a firm’s distinctive trade-mark or name”
• referring to Gen. Bus. Law § 368-d, the prior version of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360-1
• discussing N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 368-d, the current law’s predecessor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).